A security firm which had a “persistent practice” of not paying workers their wages has been hit with a compensation bill of over €60,000 after a ruling that it was “undermining” the regime of compulsory pay terms in the industry.
It came after the worker told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) he could not understand why the company – which had contracts with major retail brands, including Supervalu, Centra and Spar – seemed to be “unafraid of the State authorities while flaunting the law”.
An adjudicator has found the company, BGS Security Ltd, trading as BGSS, was “making significant inroads” into the Dublin security market by not paying workers, which gave it “an obvious unfair and substantial advantage over its law-abiding competitors”.
The worker, Umarjon Muradov, is the ninth former employee of the company to secure an order at the WRC for unpaid wages since last September, with sums ranging from around €1,200 to €5,000 being awarded by adjudication officers in each case.
However, Mr Muradov, who was represented by the Independent Workers’ Union (IWU) in his claim, is the only worker to date to bring a statutory complaint against the firm alleging non-compliance with the current Employment Regulation Order (ERO), which sets binding minimum terms and conditions of employment for the security sector.
Mr Muradov told the WRC he worked as a security guard for BGSS at a number of Centra and Spar stores in Dublin City Centre during his time at the firm, as well as a Supervalu supermarket in a suburban area of the capital.
His evidence was that he was left “working long hours alone ... without backup or support” at the entrance to the city centre shops, facing “challenging behaviour from members of the public as well as threats and assault”.
The latest ERO for the security sector came into force by ministerial order last July, and increased the minimum wage for a security guard from €12.90 an hour to €14.50 – a euro above the national minimum wage.
Mr Muradov’s evidence was that BGSS “simply failed to pay [the new rate] or even any wage approaching this figure”, adjudication officer David James Murphy wrote. Premium rates for antisocial hours, annual leave and public holiday pay also went unpaid, the adjudicator added.
“They only paid him €500 for the months of June, July and August, during which he worked excessive hours,” Mr Murphy wrote.
The complainant’s evidence was that the company admitted to him that he was owed money but simply “failed to follow through with payment” and told him to keep working.
Mr Muradov said that members of the public who saw him in the BGSS uniform would approach him to tell him that the firm “didn’t pay their staff”.
He said he “didn’t believe these people” because he was “working in Europe and thought employers had to obey the law here”.
Mr Muradov added that he could not understand why BGSS “appears to be so unafraid of the State authorities while flaunting the law”.
David Cotter, Mr Muradov’s trade union representative, said the security business was an “extremely competitive” sector where the main overhead was labour costs. He said he had seen BGSS display a “pattern of behaviour”.
The company would “pay the first month’s wages and then cease paying the worker regularly, and limit themselves to partial payments when chased,” he said.
He said it meant workers were ultimately being left to quit after “a few months of providing free labour” which BGSS’s management had “presumably charged their clients for”.
In his decision on Mr Muradov’s case, published on Friday, Mr Murphy noted multiple recent WRC decisions “corroborating” the evidence of Mr Muradov and his union rep to the effect that “non-payment of wages is a persistent practice” of BGSS.
“The respondent in failing to pay the complainant, is given an obvious unfair and substantial advantage over its law-abiding competitors,” he wrote.
He determined that Mr Muradov’s proper wage was €600. Mr Murphy directed BGSS to pay €3,712.84 under the Payment of Wages Act for the pay still owing, and a further €1,200 for a breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 on the part of BGSS.
“I believe that in determining the appropriate compensation it is relevant that the respondent is engaged in a wider practice in not paying wages and I am of the view that this is generally undermining of the Joint Labour Committee regime,” Mr Murphy wrote.
Ruling BGSS to be in breach of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 over its failure to pay the ERO rate, Mr Murphy noted that his maximum jurisdiction was to award two years’ wages, or €62,568.
However, he decided that as there was an overlap between that breach and the non-payment of wages issue, he reduced that by the sum awarded under the pay legislation and directed the firm to pay €58,855 to Mr Muradov.
The total sum awarded in the case was €63,767.84 – bringing the total bill in employment rights rulings against BGSS to over €90,000 since September 2024.
